Condominium and homeowners associations tend to run on documents: declarations, bylaws, rules and regulations, an architectural committee, a violation letter template. When one of those documents says two pets per unit, or no dogs over 40 pounds, or no animals in the lobby, a board often treats the text as the end of the conversation. Federal housing rules treat it as the beginning.
The word that decides it is “person”
The accommodation duty is written broadly on purpose. Under 24 C.F.R. § 100.204(a), it is unlawful “for any person to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas.”
“Person” is not left to intuition. The definitions at 24 C.F.R. § 100.20 say the term “includes one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees … and fiduciaries.” An incorporated association that adopts and enforces rules about the dwellings in its community is squarely inside that list, and so is the management company it hires.
Common areas were named on purpose
Notice the last clause of § 100.204(a): the equal opportunity runs to the dwelling unit “including public and common use areas.” That phrase is defined at 24 C.F.R. § 100.201 as “rooms, spaces or elements inside or outside of a building that are made available for the use of residents of a building or the guests thereof,” and the definition then lists “hallways, lounges, lobbies, laundry rooms, refuse rooms, mail rooms, recreational areas and passageways among and between buildings.”
That matters because association rules concentrate exactly there. A rule that permits an animal inside a unit but bars it from the elevator, the lobby, or the path to the parking deck does not leave the resident with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the home. The animal cannot reach the unit without crossing the space the rule closed.
Rules a board cannot apply to an assistance animal
Association covenants that operate as ordinary pet policy have no special status once a documented accommodation request is on the table:
- Numeric pet caps written into the declaration
- Breed exclusions, including insurance-driven exclusions the board did not write itself
- Weight and height limits
- Species lists that permit only cats and dogs
- Pet registration fees, per-animal assessments, or refundable animal deposits collected by the association
- Amenity restrictions that keep the animal off shared walkways or out of the building’s only entrance
The unequal-terms rule at 24 C.F.R. § 100.65 reaches this conduct from a second direction. That section makes it unlawful to impose different terms, conditions or privileges relating to the rental of a dwelling because of handicap, and it names “limiting the use of privileges, services or facilities associated with a dwelling” as a prohibited action.
What a board may still legitimately do
The duty is real but it is not unlimited. Under 24 C.F.R. § 100.202(d), nothing in the subpart “requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.” That assessment has to be about the specific animal in front of the board, supported by objective facts, and not about the reputation of a breed.
A board may also ask for documentation when the disability and the disability-related need are not apparent. What it may not do is turn the request into a medical file review. Section 100.202(c) prohibits an inquiry “to determine whether an applicant for a dwelling … has a handicap or to make inquiry as to the nature or severity of a handicap of such a person.” A board that asks for a diagnosis, therapy notes, or a list of medications has crossed from verification into an inquiry the regulation forbids.
Fines, violation letters, and the interference rule
The most common association misstep is not an outright denial. It is a running violation notice while the accommodation request sits unanswered, with fines accruing weekly against the owner’s ledger.
Section 100.400 addresses that pattern. It makes it unlawful “to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of … any right granted or protected by this part,” and its list of covered conduct includes “retaliating against any person because that person reported a discriminatory housing practice to a housing provider or other authority.” A fine imposed because a resident is keeping a documented assistance animal, or because that resident complained about the handling of the request, is exactly the conduct the section describes.
Who is on the hook when things go wrong
Associations often outsource enforcement, which raises the question of who answers for a bad decision. The liability rule at 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 answers it in three parts. A person is directly liable for their own conduct, for failing to correct an employee’s or agent’s discriminatory conduct they knew or should have known about, and for failing to act on a third party’s conduct where they knew about it and “had the power to correct it.” The section then adds vicarious liability for an agent’s conduct “regardless of whether the person knew or should have known” of it, consistent with agency law.
There is a pointed limit built into the same section: prompt corrective action “may not include any action that penalizes or harms the aggrieved person, such as eviction of the aggrieved person.” A board cannot resolve a neighbor complaint by removing the resident who made the accommodation request.
Renting inside a condo means two decision-makers
A tenant leasing a unit in an association-governed building is answering to a landlord and to a board at the same time, and the two rarely coordinate. The practical move is to send the request to both in the same week: to the landlord as a lease accommodation, and to the association in whatever form its governing documents use for a variance or a rules exception. Waiting for the landlord to relay it usually costs a month and produces a second, contradictory answer.
Keep the paper. A dated written request, the board’s response or silence, and the minutes of the meeting where the item was discussed are what an investigator will ask for first.
The 2025 federal guidance change
Boards that have been trained on HUD’s old assistance-animal memo are working from a document that no longer exists. HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity withdrew FHEO Notice 2020-01 and FHEO Notice 2013-01, effective September 17, 2025, in a notice published at 91 FR 17291 under Docket No. FR-6571-N-01. The same notice states that conduct failing to comply with the text of the Fair Housing Act remains subject to enforcement, and reminds readers that a complainant may bring a civil action in federal or state court within two years of the conduct.
Withdrawing a guidance memo does not repeal a regulation. Sections 100.204, 100.202, 100.65, 100.400 and 100.7 are all still in the Code of Federal Regulations, and they are the provisions an association is actually bound by. Our overview of what the Fair Housing Act guarantees walks through the same framework from the tenant’s side.
State law often reaches associations directly
Several states describe the covered party in language that leaves no room for a board to argue it is a private club rather than a housing provider.
| State | Provision | Effect on a board |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 760.27 | Defines a housing provider as any person or entity engaging in conduct covered by the federal Fair Housing Act, including an owner or lessor, and forbids extra compensation for the animal |
| New York | N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(18)(2) | Writes the use of an animal to alleviate symptoms of a disability into the accommodation duty itself |
| Pennsylvania | Assistance and Service Animal Integrity Act § 3(a) | Permits a documentation request only where the disability or the need is not readily apparent or known |
| California | Cal. Gov. Code § 12955 | Supplies a state accommodation duty enforced by the Civil Rights Department |
| Texas | Tex. Prop. Code § 301.025 | Mirrors the federal accommodation duty, with complaints going to the Texas Workforce Commission |
State pages with the full citations sit at Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, California and Texas.
If the board says no
Get the denial in writing with the reason attached, then check the reason against the two lawful categories in § 100.202(d). If it is a covenant, a breed list, or a headcount, it is not one of them. A complaint may be filed with HUD or with a substantially equivalent state agency, and the federal administrative window is one year from the conduct under 24 C.F.R. § 103.35. The parallel path to court, noted in the 2026 withdrawal notice itself, runs two years.
Boards respond to specificity. A letter that cites the section number, attaches the provider’s documentation, and asks for a written decision by a named date resolves far more of these disputes than an argument at an open meeting ever has.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a condo association covered by federal fair housing rules?
The regulation defines a person to include corporations, partnerships and associations, and the accommodation duty is written as a duty of any person. A board acting on a unit is inside that definition rather than outside it.
Can the board keep my animal out of the lobby or the elevator?
The accommodation duty at 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 covers a dwelling unit including public and common use areas. Hallways, lobbies, laundry rooms and passageways are named as common use areas in the definitions at § 100.201.
The association already fined me. Is that fine still valid?
Ask the board in writing to rescind it as part of the accommodation. A fine imposed for keeping a documented assistance animal is an adverse action taken because a resident exercised a protected right, which the interference rule at 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 addresses directly.
Who is responsible if a neighbor, not the board, is the problem?
A person can be directly liable for failing to take prompt action against a third party's discriminatory conduct where they knew of it and had the power to correct it. That corrective action may not itself penalize the resident who complained.
Support Animal Editorial Team
Reviewed by licensed providers
The Support Animal editorial team researches ESA and PSA regulations nationwide. Every guide is fact-checked against federal and state law and reviewed by licensed providers before publication.
